I've also eliminated the starter button, and will explore getting rid of the promise to starters in the recruiting (which will essentially make the idea of starters moot, though it will still mark the starters. )

I believe this is a BAD idea, for several reasons.

Eliminating promised starts does NOT make the idea of starters moot, as "starting is a factor in player attribute growth.

Eliminating promised starts removes some strategy from the recruiting aspect of the game.

Eliminating promised starts removes one of the few tools that helps rebuilding teams return to competitiveness (as "contending" teams would not want to play true freshman when they have better juniors and seniors) [At least, this is the case in real life. Where "starting" is achieved with a minimal amount of play time by the player, this is not so true.]

I know the 'problem' of starters has proved to be a sticky one, but please don't solve the problem by just getting rid of the idea.

I've also eliminated the starter button, and will explore getting rid of the promise to starters in the recruiting (which will essentially make the idea of starters moot, though it will still mark the starters. )

I believe this is a BAD idea, for several reasons.

Eliminating promised starts does NOT make the idea of starters moot, as "starting is a factor in player attribute growth.

Eliminating promised starts removes some strategy from the recruiting aspect of the game.

Eliminating promised starts removes one of the few tools that helps rebuilding teams return to competitiveness (as "contending" teams would not want to play true freshman when they have better juniors and seniors) [At least, this is the case in real life. Where "starting" is achieved with a minimal amount of play time by the player, this is not so true.]

I know the 'problem' of starters has proved to be a sticky one, but please don't solve the problem by just getting rid of the idea.

Posted by noah23 on 10/5/2013 11:53:00 PM (view original):1. That can invariably be changed to make playing time the factor instead of "starting"
2. Not really, as you would weight playing time more without having starts.
3. no, see above.

You are correct about #1, and in fact playing time should be included as a factor in attribute growth. I disagree with you on 2 & 3. You *could* do that, certainly, but I still believe that gives you less options than the current system.

Honestly, though, I don't see WHY it is so hard to have the game figure out "starters". Just look at the formation used most often (to give you positional distribution) then count the plays. The QB who plays the most is the starter. The one or two or three RB that play the most, depending on your most-used formation, are the starters. Or, use the depth chart.

that seems to be how it is set up now. it just seems to be perenially glitchy. My team I play Wishbone has 3 RB starting, trips, has 3 WR starting. but then, randomly, there will only be 7 starters designated for a game.

WHy can't we return to the system Beta started with when we chose our own starters? Just move the starter selection checkbox to the depth chart screen. Regardless, I too think keeping the starter feature is a good idea.

Does this realistically represent the process? In my opinion, outside of QB, its so arbitrary I doubt seriously its ever really done in real life. One game the team will start in I-Form, the next in a four wide shotgun, the next in a 3 RB play. That third running back got the start then right? Cause the only tangible thing you get from starting in real life is having your name mentioned by the announcer at the beginning of the game even if you never play another play.

Maybe we can have it included, but increase the promise of playing time's weight and decrease the weight of a start to more accurately reflect reality. A 2 down running back could be the starter, or he could not be the starter. Depends on what downs he is in for. but wouldn't the more important part of that mean that he would get over 50% playing time while a 1 down back would only get 30%? A Three down back could conceivably see 80%+ playing time. A slot wide receiver could play 70% of the game for some teams, and still not get a "start" because the opening play had one or two wide receivers. A team could use two tight ends in 50+% of plays, and that would mean that the second tight end isnt necessarily starting every game, but is in on 50% of the plays.

I don't think it is that arbitrary to name starters. It is done in both college and the pros, regardless of formations. Teams have starting rosters. They have preseason pamphlets/booklets/new letters/websites that name the starters. It is not unreasonable for an 18 year old superstar to be motivated by inclusion in these things. I did not play college ball (only high school), but I did wrestle in college. Some of my teammates were motivated by these types of things. Recognition, vanity, exposure etc can be used as a recruiting tool. In my opinion promising starts is more realistic than a coach promising playing time based on percentages. Who promises a kid he will play 15% or 75% of the season? Playing time itself makes perfect sense, but the way it is promised is not terribly realistic. Why does promising starts have to be?

i believe that promising PT is overly specific, but that promising "some playing time", "moderate playing time" and "a lot of playing time" is realistic. Maybe not having an option for each 5% increment, but 25% increments or something would be realistic. I tend to want realism in all of my games, particularly text sims because I lack so much of the excitement generated by having polygons. (yes I am the type that watches/coaches madden games)

Why are we even debating this? Colleges promise starts and playing time to entice players- end of story. If that can't be programmed into this game (and it still appears from my mutinous team of non-starting starters that this is the case) then something is wrong and needs to be fixed. End of story.

Posted by eric1214 on 10/6/2013 8:18:00 PM (view original):Why are we even debating this? Colleges promise starts and playing time to entice players- end of story. If that can't be programmed into this game (and it still appears from my mutinous team of non-starting starters that this is the case) then something is wrong and needs to be fixed. End of story.

You have gobs of proof that this occurs outside of quarterback in college in the modern game with packages containing as many as 5 wr 3 TE 3 RB on teams? Somehow, I don't see it as very prevalent. There are precious few starters who are actually true freshmen. In basketball does it happen? Absolutely. In football? Not so much.

Posted by eric1214 on 10/6/2013 8:18:00 PM (view original):Why are we even debating this? Colleges promise starts and playing time to entice players- end of story. If that can't be programmed into this game (and it still appears from my mutinous team of non-starting starters that this is the case) then something is wrong and needs to be fixed. End of story.

You have gobs of proof that this occurs outside of quarterback in college in the modern game with packages containing as many as 5 wr 3 TE 3 RB on teams? Somehow, I don't see it as very prevalent. There are precious few starters who are actually true freshmen. In basketball does it happen? Absolutely. In football? Not so much.

Again it depends on the program. Downtrodden programs with new coaches tend to start a lot of under classmen. The same philosophy tends to occur here.

Posted by eric1214 on 10/6/2013 8:18:00 PM (view original):Why are we even debating this? Colleges promise starts and playing time to entice players- end of story. If that can't be programmed into this game (and it still appears from my mutinous team of non-starting starters that this is the case) then something is wrong and needs to be fixed. End of story.

You have gobs of proof that this occurs outside of quarterback in college in the modern game with packages containing as many as 5 wr 3 TE 3 RB on teams? Somehow, I don't see it as very prevalent. There are precious few starters who are actually true freshmen. In basketball does it happen? Absolutely. In football? Not so much.

Again it depends on the program. Downtrodden programs with new coaches tend to start a lot of under classmen. The same philosophy tends to occur here.

Then what is wrong with flipping the priority of start vs playing time? Starting on a piece of paper and barely playing is seriously less valuable then playing 75% of the game and not starting.

So noah it sound like your argument is "Playing time should matter more than starts, so it's ok to just forget about 'starts' altogether." If that's not correct, please clarify.

However, let me say this - in my opinion:

1) When it comes to PLAYER GROWTH, playing time should matter more than 'starting.' However, 'starting' should have a positive effect on work effort, if nothing else.

2) A "Promised Start" should be a valuable recruiting tool, with SEVERE penalties for not delivering. And by severe, I mean player LEAVES the team mid-season (after a 3rd warning email) and a Reputation hit.

3) "Starting" should mainly consist of a combination of where a player appears on a depth chart, and how much playing time they get. A simple check mark next to their name and one play in the first half is ridiculous.